Walker: Progressivism’s Ideological Ghetto

Such is the cocksureness of the progressive-left brand of “journalism” it doesn’t even try anymore. The rhetorical arched eyebrow and snide commentary seemingly is enough for an audience radically hidebound to statist ideology. Why mount a reasoned argument, it’s surmised, when like-minded readers slavishly devour reheated gruel from the G.W. Bush era – whose family name consistently was rendered sneeringly into multiple syllables to telegraph the speakers’ superior judgment and membership in the upper caste of intellectual cognoscenti.

The point of this column isn’t to defend GWB (or Republicans in general), but to denigrate the slovenly manner by which political punditry has devolved into nothing more than middle-school mean-girlishness and downright churlishness. A case in point among the typical editorial-page bedwetting displayed consistently in this fishwrap was last week’s inclusion of Geoffrey Wheatcroft’s Washington Post essay, “Republicans love Churchill. Too bad Churchill loved government-run health care.”

Oooh, burn!! Because, you know, established British journalists always should aspire to the realm of cable-television gadflies John Oliver and Samantha Bee – watch how they totally destroy any given conservative shibboleths with snark, obscenities and logical fallacies galore! But … Republicans are stoopid, amiright? At least Wheatcroft, it’s assumed, writes his own material and doesn’t rely on a roomful of writers.

We need a Brit to show us the true Churchill, the Churchill of whom Republicans are either ignorant or choose to hypocritically cherry-pick the great man’s legacy (and, make no mistake, he indeed was a great man albeit flawed as are we all) for their own nefarious ends. “Republicans can’t have Churchill,” Wheatcroft implies, “because you oppose single-payer healthcare and Churchill championed national health.” Wotta load of balderdash.

Advertisement

Somehow, the esteemed Wheatcroft also manages to suggest Republicans can’t claim ownership of Churchill’s reputation as a great wartime leader. “Even when Republicans shout or tweet the names ‘Munich’ and ‘appeasement’ one may assume they are ignorant of the circumstances,” states Wheatcroft. Yes, the United States was “conspicuously neutral” at the time of Dunkirk, and President Roosevelt (who was pretty much a left-of-center Democrat by all accounts) favored the 1938 Munich Agreement, and this is by some stretch is an indictment of contemporary Republican admiration for Churchill.

From this, one is to conclude supposedly … what exactly? Oh, right, Republicans are stoopid and hypocritical. This, dear readers, is rhetorical contortionism that doesn’t warrant rebuttal. As noted above, Wheatcroft isn’t even trying, so why should your writer?

Wheatcroft willingly dodges the point entirely, cribbing whataboutism directly from the Soviet dialectical playbook. “Oh, so you say you like Churchill?” is the setup, and the punch line for Republicans (and, really, all conservatives) follows: “Well, he liked socialized medicine! Whatabout that? You can’t have it both ways! Gotcha!” Hoo boy.

Your writer can’t speak for most Republicans, but, as a conservative of the Russell Kirk variety, he can assert assuredly, as did Kirk, true conservatism is the negation of ideology. As individuals and concomitantly members of what Edmund Burke dubbed “little platoons,” we don’t succumb inherently to identification with FDR’s policy decisions of 1938 (or any other year, for that matter) nor do we submit automatically to any policies promulgated by either party, president, poobah or what have you.

Your writer is reminded of a lecture he attended, given by the theologian and philosopher Vigen Guroian on G.K. Chesterton. Another attendee challenged Guroian’s obvious appreciation of Chesterton, stating the Catholic apologist opposed women’s suffrage – whataboutism at its finest. The speaker calmly explained he disagreed with Chesterton on that and other matters, but agreed with him on many more.

Idealogues of the Wheatcroft variety make the straw-man assumption that their opponents to a person are as ideologically enslaved as well. Such is their blinkered existence, they can’t imagine otherwise.